Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The project submitted by the interested parties, presents the importance of the landscape / seascape / Indian territory biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits. For example, these indigenous peoples and local communities live approximately 759,318 hectares comprising territories and seascapes, including tropical and subtropical rainforests, mangroves and freshwater
Evidence B:The project area is highly fragmented because of long-term human occupation, so there is not a large intact forest landscape. However, it contains some key biodiversity areas.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: According to the document presented by the interested parties, they show that the proposed area is critical for mitigating climate
Evidence B:According to the map provided, it does have high carbon values.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The area proposed processes are characterized by strong community-based, participatory and emerging historical processes of struggle and resistance, based on the resilience of systems own knowledge, anchored in the consciousness and commitment to long-term biocultural conservation.
Evidence B:There is evidence of long-term and strong IPLC governance systems.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposal explains in a general way the unique cultural significance of the region
Evidence B:There are multiple IPLCs included and the value is stated but not deeply.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The proposed region is vulnerable to internal and external threats, including negative impacts for indigenous peoples and local communities and biodiversity. Among the external threats are legal or illegal extractivitas industries, the development of mega infrastructure projects, industrial fishing and farming, mass tourism and threats against social leaders
Evidence B:The proponent does a good job in describing succinctly internal and external threats to the IPLCs and the environment.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Regarding the initiative presented, the document that there is a legal and political framework but with limitations as political will
Evidence B:There are some enabling conditions that could and should be improved.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Governments have somehow supported the initiatives of Ticca in the Plans of Land Planning, institutional action plans of the competent authorities and articulate the various plans for biodiversity management and conservation of the country, and influence initiatives from territories, management and protection of biodiversity, reforestation, care and regeneration of plant species, participation in the action plans of biodiversity.
Evidence B:There are good regulations that should be implemented.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There are successful conservation initiatives led by PICL in the proposed area that provide a base for expanding. An example is the initiative Ticca land use plans.
Evidence B:According to the text, the RED TICCA is a good foundation for this project.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Other initiatives (major projects) that provide additional support for conservation led by IPLC in geography. However, no specific details that reflect and complement in time and context.
Evidence B:There is no strong evidence of many projects.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed approach is well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to improve the efforts of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) to manage land, water and natural resources to provide an overall environmental benefit
Evidence B:Yes. The text is clear and well aligned with stated objectives.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The document submitted by the interested parties, reflects activities and clear and convincing results. However, you need to clarify some aspects such as context and time.
Evidence B:There are many activities and results that need to be better organized under a tighter theory of change.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The project (objectives and activities) will help to overcome the threats identified and establish the necessary opportunities for conservation led by PICL.
Evidence B:The scope is broad (many communities) but their hope is that this can be managed under the RED TICCA.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Activities can be achieved within a budget range of $ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000 USD over a period of 5 years of implementation of the project
Evidence B:There is no clarity about how much each activity will cost per community.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The document includes moderate and specific sources of co-financing
Evidence B:The co-financing is mainly in-kind.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposed activities to achieve a transformative impact led by PICL to generate global environmental benefits is very high
Evidence B:If the project is successful, it will have a large impact.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The document presented indicates that the reflected indicators are moderately aligned with the objectives of the project
Evidence B:Yes, the indicators proposed are adequate.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project will create a profit of medium-term term but future funding based on project
Evidence B:This is an opportunity to strengthen a network of communities. The network is developing a long-term sustainability approach.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The document is based and contributes to some national priorities as defined in the document but does not indicate the priorities of NBSAPs and NDCs
Evidence B:Yes. However, the contributions need to be spelled out more clearly.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Integrate women with full rights instances where decisions are taken and establish rules to make clear the full participation of women in decision-making.
Evidence B:Needs more thought.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The document presented by interested parties shows a medium-high potential for innovation and transformation to a long-term contribution.
Evidence B:Yes. Because the project will benefit a network of communities, they can become models for other similar communities.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposed project presents an approach led and composed entirely of indigenous peoples and local communities
Evidence B:The Resguardo represents the TICCA network. The Resguardo was founded in 1627. Although not stated in the project, one can assume that the resguardo has faced a number of challenges and its presence today is evidence of its resilience over time.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The initiative presented by interested parties shows that the main proponent demonstrates leadership in the field relevant to the proposed work
Evidence B:The Resguardo has been able to put together a complex Eol in a short time with the participation of 17 diverse groups.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: According to the project stakeholders, the main proponent has relevant experience in working with networks, alliances and organizations of Indigenous / Local Communities, strength of associations in the field. However, there is no clear involvement of other actors in the project.
Evidence B:The RED TICCA is evidence of a strong partnership. The RED (network) is led by this Resguardo.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The project reflects the main proponent has the technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, causes deep and barriers
Evidence B:The Resguardo does have experience with GEF projects
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The paper presented demonstrates the capacity for financial management and project necessary for the scale of the effort proposed is moderate
Evidence B:There is not enough evidence in the document to assess this element.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: According to the document, lacking clearer explanation and detail on standards and safeguards used previously.
Evidence B:NA